[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Amusing bugreport



The obvious question to answer is where is the maintainer of ppp?  On
contemplation of this general problem, we may need to have a cabal
responsible for grooming the bug database before each release.  IMHO,
the only thing stopping this from being easy is rapid access to the
list.  If I can browse the list quickly I can prune bugs that I can
test easily.  Perhaps we could use a protocol update such that more
than one non-maintainer is needed to close a bug.

On Thu, Nov 26, 1998 at 01:22:02AM +0100, Torsten Landschoff wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 24, 1998 at 10:39:05PM -0500, Mitch Blevins wrote:
> 
> > > Many of them are very old, and probably are already fixed, so someone must
> > > recheck all of them, to clean the database.
> > > [snip]
> > 
> >  Amusing, yes.  But also something we should take seriously.
> >  I recently thought I had found a bug in dpkg, and went to see if the bug
> >  report had already been filed.  I gave up in despair after seeing the
> >  multitude of bugs and thinking of the prospect of trying to decipher
> >  each one to see if it applied to my situation.
> 
> For me there are far to many bugs in MANY packages. Another thing is to see
> how long it takes until a bug gets fixed.
> 
> A friend of mine noticed this for the ppp-package and we met on irc to wipe
> those bugs. Of course we did not fix them all but we were able to sort out
> which bugs weren't really bugs, which were fixed and which are quite easy to
> fix. 
> 
> Problem is: We need some help to decide how to handle some things. I am new to
> debian development and so I am not sure which bugs to close :) Of course this
> is not really interesting since I am not the maintainer of ppp.
> 
> My idea to get some bugs fixed: What about creating a new channel on
> irc.debian.org dedicated to fixing bugs. I guess if we can discuss the bugs in
> realtime we can fix them a lot faster than by email-discussion.
> 
> Just my $0.02
> 
> 	Torsten
> 



Reply to: